That's convenient. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would simply say to MP Pauzé that I appreciate the spirit of where she is going.
I want to make a few things very clear. We all know from debate that Liberals are opposed to our resolving our own plastic waste for final disposal—keeping that within Canada. Conservatives think we should be able to do it.
We've heard some members lament the low [Technical difficulty—Editor] this is the way to deal with it. We have heard that there are some deficiencies; that's what the Liberal members are calling this.
Let's be very clear, Mr. Chair. The way that MP Saks's amendment is structured is the final Hail Mary pass of this bill for the Liberals. In effect, if we were to pass her amendment without the changes proposed by Madam Pauzé and me, we would in fact be allowing the government to determine when and if this law would ever come into force. They are in a minority, so if this is given to the Governor in Council, they could postpone indefinitely or infinitely. It's all up to them.
This is about the will of Parliament expressing itself, saying that Canada needs to be a leader, much as Australia has done. Scot Davidson has created a bill, and while I still have the floor, Mr. Chair, [Technical difficulty—Editor] he said there was deficiency in enforcement. The officials actually said that there may be difficulties compelling inspection, which is systemic to the regime itself.
This bill only carves into CEPA this new provision, which is why I suggested that if the parliamentary secretary is concerned about enforcement, he should join with Conservatives and, at the upcoming review, try to strengthen the regime so that those who are tasked with enforcing CEPA have all the tools they need to comply, while bearing in mind that Canadian businesses are very honest. If the law is changed as Mr. Davidson suggested in this bill, that would go a long way towards seeing their compliance, albeit there may be an act or two that we need to work on. That's exactly what we're proposing here.
We've also heard the concerns of industry.
As a former parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, I will say that the two-year timeline that officials gave is for a standard review of regulations. Again, this is a very small bill. For example, very simple changes to the schedule can be made by the minister directly. This is not the same as a wholesale revision of a set of regulations, which can take two years.
I want to thank Madam Pauzé for believing that we can express ourselves as a Parliament and, at the same time, recognize some concerns by government or industry about the implementation and, at the same time, give them a timeline that is clear and that allows them to be able to work within it. I certainly appreciate the friendly amendment and look forward to—hopefully—having convinced Mr. Bittle to vote for Madam Pauzé's and my amendment today.
Thank you.